Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3.2
Santa Maria Basin (California, USA) comparison of DCEOR field
demonstration to baseline field performance (after Wittle and Hill, 2006a, 2006b;
Wittle et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2011)
Item
Baseline Production
DCEOR Production
Production Rate (BOPD)
5
50
Water Cut (%)
45
12
Oil API Gravity
8.1°
10.7°
Gas Production (SCFPD)
1,750 -2,000
3,800
Produced Gas Energy
Content (BTU/SCF)
1.197
1.730
H2S Content (ppm)
2,290
2-40
Viscosity (cps@ 100°C)
51,747
21,275
• The produced gas energy content (PGEC) increased by a
factor of 1.5
• he H
2
S production dropped from 2,290 ppm to 2 - 40 ppm
The viscosity, API Gravity and PGEC changes are consistent with in-situ
Cold Cracking,
with DCEOR breaking down complex hydrocarbon mol-
ecules into simpler liquid hydrocarbons and gases. The near complete
destruction of H
2
S suggests that the DCEOR is electrochemical, rather
than temperature related. These results and conclusions are consistent with
those of Döring et al. (2000, 2001, 2003) for DC electrokinetic soil reme-
diation projects.
Table 3.3 summarizes the DCEOR light (C
1
-C
9
) hydrocarbon and
hydrogen (H
2
) production, in comparison to the baseline production.
With the exception of methane (C
1
), these results are consistent with some
type of in-situ
Cold Cracking
. The decrease in methane content may be due
either to difficulties in capturing this light hydrocarbon, during the base-
line production and/or the destruction of methane to hydrogen gas (H
2
),
which went from non-detect to 1.9%.
Table 3.4 compares the oil production efficiency for DCEOR, cyclic (huff
and puff) ) steam injection, and steamflood, for the Santa Maria Basin field
demonstration reservoir. DCEOR was approximately 185 times as efficient
as “huff and puff ” and 613 - 1,083 times more effective than steam flood.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search